Philosophical thread of the day: Is morality inherent to our human nature?

[Turanil]

That sounds a lot more like "playing with your victim" than trying for real justification.

Hey, good point. I never thought of that possibility before (not that I thought about it so much anyway).

 

[spider_minion]

I don't think the human mind is designed to perceive itself as evil.

That's just what I was thinking. I doubt there are many criminals running around saying "I'm evil, so I can do whatever I want! Ha ha, losers!"

About morality being a part of human nature . . . I heard from one of my philosophy professors that researchers did experiments on monkeys where, when one monkey was subject to pain, that others would get upset or frightened. He thought that our systems of ethics might just be trying to put this animal empathy into words. I'm not sure what to make of that conclusion, but I think at least that the rationalizations that criminals make (and probably policy makers too!) are ways around our basic empathy for others.

Also, when we debated the various systems of ethics in class, one frequent (and heavy-hitting) criticism was that they could be counter-intuitive. I think the basic implication of this is that we can safely place a lot of trust in our intuition. How much is innate and how much is society's doing I'm not sure.

So anyways, I think that there is some element of morality in our human nature. It's just that our brain gives people a way to ignore it.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

I heard from one of my philosophy professors that researchers did experiments on monkeys where, when one monkey was subject to pain, that others would get upset or frightened. He thought that our systems of ethics might just be trying to put this animal empathy into words.

You want an experiment... take two chimps and train them to perform some simple task in exchange for a reward.

Then let them find out that they're getting different rewards and watch all hell break loose.

Some kind of sense of "fair play" is certainly inherent in primates.

I think the basic implication of this is that we can safely place a lot of trust in our intuition. How much is innate and how much is society's doing I'm not sure.

I am very, very skeptical of your first statement here-- your conscience may take a lot of prodding to accept mass murder, but it's a lot easier to swallow all kinds of lesser immoral acts. Also... our sense of empathy only naturally applies to familiar people; I don't think your intuition will do you much good with strangers without a lot of formal ethical support.

 

[reveal]

If morality was truly inherent to human nature, would what is happening in New Orleans (the looting, violence, etc) right now be happening? I think New Orleans is a good example that morality is NOT inherent but is a learned trait.

 

[Arravis]

I don't know if morality is "inherent", I'm not even sure how to define it, but I think that social-pack behavior is inherent. We are social creatures and instinctually attempt to better the group as long as it doesn't conflict with our individual needs.

I believe most "moral" behavior can be broken down simply to things that are good for the pack. The conflict comes in our interest and priority of the self over the pack. "Moral" behavior is the pack's attempt to keep itself in higher priority over the individual. Is this an instinctual thing? I don't know... but it would be an evolutionary advantage I'd think, so it would make sense that it would be inherent to social animals.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

If morality was truly inherent to human nature, would what is happening in New Orleans (the looting, violence, etc) right now be happening? I think New Orleans is a good example that morality is NOT inherent but is a learned trait.

huh, my intepretation would be that empathy is inherent yet able to be UN-learned. :\

I don't know about morality, but I think that both empathy and social structure are inherent in humans (and for that matter primates or just mammals). Our socialization can build these traits up into a complex moral/ethical code, leave them alone for basicly "nice" but not very morally complex people or steadily wear them down.

 

[Arravis]

I think Kahuna and I are on the same track... morality may be nothing but a more complex structure evolved out of inherent social/pack behaviors.

 

[reveal]

huh, my intepretation would be that empathy is inherent yet able to be UN-learned. :\

I don't know about morality, but I think that both empathy and social structure are inherent in humans (and for that matter primates or just mammals). Our socialization can build these traits up into a complex moral/ethical code, leave them alone for basicly "nice" but not very morally complex people or steadily wear them down.

But we're not talking about empathy, we're talking about morality. All cultures have a set of rules that they call morality. They've been set up because generations of people have found what works best and what doesn't. In a lot of cases, these moralities are made into laws.

If morality is inherent to humans, why build such laws? Why not just let people do what they wish if they, indeed, inherently know what is morally correct to do?

I agree that empathy is inherent. If it were not, then society would crumble because everyone would be out for themselves.

 

[Arravis]

If morality is inherent to humans, why build such laws? Why not just let people do what they wish if they, indeed, inherently know what is morally correct to do?

I'm interperting "morality" to signify the behavior of social creatures to act on things which benefit the pack. I think we do have such an inherent thing, but we also have a conflicting interest in the self. The needs of the self aren't always in conflict with the pack's needs, and when they aren't I think we tend to inherently do what's good for the pack. When they are in conflict, society tries to set up social pressure so that the needs of the pack are met over the needs of the self. Is that inherent, may be the question?

The desire for us to ask others to take the needs of the pack over themselves may be inherent, but I don't believe that prioritizing the needs of the pack over the self, in one's self, is inherent. That's how you get what's happening in New Orleans.

I hope that made some sense... not sure if I expressed my thoughts on this too well.

 

[reveal]

I'm interperting "morality" to signify the behavior of social creatures to act on things which benefit the pack. I think we do have such an inherent thing, but we also have a conflicting interest in the self. The needs of the self aren't always in conflict with the pack's needs, and when they aren't I think we tend to inherently do what's good for the pack. When they are in conflict, society tries to set up social pressure so that the needs of the pack are met over the needs of the self. Is that inherent, may be the question?

mor·al Pronunciation Key (môrl, mr-)

adj.

1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
3. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
4. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
5. Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
6. Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.

Indeed, morality can be defined as what is best to do for society as a whole, based upon definition 3. However, in this case, I think the original intent of this thread was to determine whether we, as humans, have the built in mechanism needed to distinguish right from wrong.

I agree that needs of the "self" are not always in conflict with pack. However, from your definition, humans are not inherintly moral because they choose the needs of the self over the needs of the pack when given the chance.

...but I don't believe that prioritizing the needs of the pack over the self, in one's self, is inherent.

If "morality" is defined as conforming to the needs of the pack, then your quote seems to state that morality is not inherent. That, push come to shove, the self will win.